Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-11-2016, 06:16 AM   #91
Moderator
Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,555
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
[/COLOR]Now, getting back to cameras myself ...That is part of why it would be good for Pentax to keep at least one MILC line so they can be completely up-to-date on the processes involved in designing and constructing MILC
If they can produce an EVF which looks, to my eye, like an OVF, then I'd be interested in mirrorless. Until then....

05-11-2016, 07:07 AM   #92
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,683
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
If they can produce an EVF which looks, to my eye, like an OVF, then I'd be interested in mirrorless. Until then....
Same for me.

Another point I don't see mentioned very often is the battery drain of an EVF. With a DSLR 4 batteries will be sufficient. Most mirrorless cameras will need three times as many for the same number of shots. That'll quickly become a logistical nightmare.
05-11-2016, 07:36 AM - 1 Like   #93
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,092
As far as I can see, the only real advantage of a mirrorless camera lies in the ability to make a smaller (and sometimes lighter) body, because it doesn't need to house a mirror assembly. I won't get into the argument about the relative sizes of lenses. It's often said by fanatical proponents of mirror-less cameras (I whimsically refer to them as Milcsops) that the EVF shows what the sensor is seeing. But all it really does is duplicate what is on the rear LCD, and DSLRs have one of these, so users get the best of both worlds. And I won't yield to the argument that the rear EVF is hard to see in bright light: I have owned an Olympus OM-1 and OM-5, and Panasonic GX7 and G7 (I still have and use the Pannys, but I hated the Olympuses), and the EVF is darned hard to see in bright sunlight, too. Maybe it has an advantage in poor light, but we still have the rear LCD.... I can understand people liking, or even preferring, a mirror-less system for varying reasons, but I can't understand the need of some people to rabidly attack DSLRs and forecast their imminent demise. I prefer a larger camera body, (I've just bought a Nikon D2Xs for fun) even though I'm getting on in years, and I don't find them particularly heavy. And I definitely prefer an OVF. Long may both types (and rangefinders, too) survive, improving year on year!
05-11-2016, 07:44 AM   #94
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,442
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Now, getting back to cameras myself ...That is part of why it would be good for Pentax to keep at least one MILC line so they can be completely up-to-date on the processes involved in designing and constructing MILC
Well, that's circular logic.

The safest, least expensive and greenest fuel / power source for recharging D-Li90 batteries is nuclear.


Last edited by monochrome; 05-11-2016 at 08:29 AM.
05-11-2016, 07:59 AM   #95
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Perrineville, NJ
Posts: 1,365
On Sunday, I was using a new kitchen gadget, one of those vegetable slicer mandolin things, and I cut off a tiny little part of the very tip of my pinky. Just a little corner of skin, fortunately. The skin is a bit thick there, near the corner of my fingernail, kind of where one might develop a hangnail anyhow. It hardly bled and is healing fine.
05-11-2016, 09:49 AM   #96
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Well, that's circular logic.

The safest, least expensive and greenest fuel / power source for recharging D-Li90 batteries is nuclear.
I don't understand your response. My comment was exclusively about designing and producing cameras, and
had nothing at all to do with providing power for cameras.
05-11-2016, 10:06 AM   #97
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,442
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I don't understand your response. My comment was exclusively about designing and producing cameras, and
had nothing at all to do with providing power for cameras.
Pentax possibly doesn't have the manufacturing expertise (or hasn't invested in the manufacturing process design, technology and tools) to produce large-format Mirrorless cameras, but you suggest Pentax maintain a product line of Mirrorless cameras so they will have the process design, technology and tools at hand.

Isn't that circular logic?

The battery charge thing was an ironic aside on the electric cars seque.
05-11-2016, 10:41 AM   #98
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Well, that's circular logic.

The safest, least expensive and greenest fuel / power source for recharging D-Li90 batteries is nuclear.
Well my K-01 runs on nucleair power since I have a contract with a energie company that exclusively delivers nucleair power.

05-11-2016, 11:22 AM   #99
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Pentax possibly doesn't have the manufacturing expertise (or hasn't invested in the manufacturing process design, technology and tools) to produce large-format Mirrorless cameras, but you suggest Pentax maintain a product line of Mirrorless cameras so they will have the process design, technology and tools at hand.

Isn't that circular logic?
Not at all. They obviously have much of the necessary technology, since they have produced credible Q and K-01 cameras. I merely suggest that they continue at least some of that development so they will maintain some of that capability so they would be in a position to ramp it up if the market were to make a turn in that direction.
05-11-2016, 01:43 PM   #100
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,442
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Not at all. They obviously have much of the necessary technology, since they have produced credible Q and K-01 cameras. I merely suggest that they continue at least some of that development so they will maintain some of that capability so they would be in a position to ramp it up if the market were to make a turn in that direction.
K-01 was a K-30 without a mirror box. From a manufacturing perspective it was a dSLR process - not in any way a new manufacturing technique.

It is possible Q manufacturing process is scalable, but not likely. It is doubtful Pentax manufactures many of the Q components itself. We know they are highly dependent on suppliers for dSLR's. Unles Q components scale up easily there is little expertise or tooling that transfers to an APSc or FF Mirrorless, which is entirely my point. MILC is likely cost-prohibitive from a capital allocation standpoint for Pentax, much the same way FF was cost-prohibitive for a decade.

It helps to read this to understand what I mean about manufacturing expertise.
05-11-2016, 02:32 PM - 1 Like   #101
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Quote
As far as I can see, the only real advantage of a mirrorless camera lies in the ability to make a smaller (and sometimes lighter) body, because it doesn't need to house a mirror assembly.
No. Just no. It irks me when reviewers get hung up on the whole "mirrorless = smaller and lighter" thing and assume that's the only reason for them to exist. That was one reason why the K-01 got panned. "It's mirrorless but it's not tiny, LOL! What was Pentax thinking??" I would love for Pentax to produce another K-mount mirrorless camera, with a few lessons learned.

QuoteQuote:
I won't get into the argument about the relative sizes of lenses. It's often said by fanatical proponents of mirror-less cameras (I whimsically refer to them as Milcsops) that the EVF shows what the sensor is seeing. But all it really does is duplicate what is on the rear LCD, and DSLRs have one of these, so users get the best of both worlds.
Right up until you step outdoors in the sunlight, and then you can't see a damn thing on it.

QuoteQuote:
And I won't yield to the argument that the rear EVF is hard to see in bright light: I have owned an Olympus OM-1 and OM-5, and Panasonic GX7 and G7 (I still have and use the Pannys, but I hated the Olympuses), and the EVF is darned hard to see in bright sunlight, too.
The EVF on my OM-D E-M5 is not hard to see in bright light. That's not an argument, just an observation. I've used it in the sun many times and never had any significant difficulty with it. (At least, no more so than with a pentaprism, where occasionally I also have to shield it from sunlight coming in at exactly the wrong angle.)

QuoteQuote:
Maybe it has an advantage in poor light, but we still have the rear LCD.... I can understand people liking, or even preferring, a mirror-less system for varying reasons, but I can't understand the need of some people to rabidly attack DSLRs and forecast their imminent demise.
OK, I'm assuming that part wasn't aimed at me, because I've never made any such forecast.

I envision DSLRs going the way of. . . the fountain pen. . . the mechanical wristwatch. . . the vinyl LP record. . . All of which are still around and doing just fine, decades after their predicted demise. They just aren't dominant anymore.
05-11-2016, 03:55 PM   #102
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
K-01 was a K-30 without a mirror box. From a manufacturing perspective it was a dSLR process - not in any way a new manufacturing technique.

It is possible Q manufacturing process is scalable, but not likely. It is doubtful Pentax manufactures many of the Q components itself. We know they are highly dependent on suppliers for dSLR's. Unles Q components scale up easily there is little expertise or tooling that transfers to an APSc or FF Mirrorless, which is entirely my point. MILC is likely cost-prohibitive from a capital allocation standpoint for Pentax, much the same way FF was cost-prohibitive for a decade.

It helps to read this to understand what I mean about manufacturing expertise.
They don't have to make a Sony camera. They will make a Pentax camera. If that means they can reuse methodology they already have, that is great! Until they have a camera with an EVF, though, they are not prepared to enter the modern MILC world. All I am wanting is for them to be comfortable with the technology in advance of a sea-change in the camera world that would make DSLR the dinosaurs of the photography world. I believe the best way for them to be sure they are ready is for them to have actually developed a camera like that in recent months. YMMV.

---------- Post added 05-11-16 at 06:59 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Quote
As far as I can see, the only real advantage of a mirrorless camera lies in the ability to make a smaller (and sometimes lighter) body, because it doesn't need to house a mirror assembly.
Actually, noise is another significant advantage. I know my Q-7 has the additional advantage of having a leaf shutter, but whatever shutter they put into an MILC, it has to be less noisy than the mirror mechanism is {I was reminded of that when I kept shifting my K-30 between LV and OVF}
05-11-2016, 04:03 PM - 1 Like   #103
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,621
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
The depth of confusion in this thread is unexpected.
Really?
Are you new around here?
05-11-2016, 04:06 PM   #104
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,442
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
They don't have to make a Sony camera. They will make a Pentax camera. If that means they can reuse methodology they already have, that is great! Until they have a camera with an EVF, though, they are not prepared to enter the modern MILC world. All I am wanting is for them to be comfortable with the technology in advance of a sea-change in the camera world that would make DSLR the dinosaurs of the photography world. I believe the best way for them to be sure they are ready is for them to have actually developed a camera like that in recent months. YMMV.
Whatever. OK. I'll try this again.

The product economics do not work without a ground-up change to the entire manufacturing process. They're either going to make a full-on commitment to Mirrorless or not all all. There's no toe-in-the-water, prepared-just-in-case tactical solution beyond Q - and we don't know whether that tech and manufacturing process is scaleable and competitive with the market leader.

AFA months to respond to a sea change in the industry, the camera product development cycle is at least three years, given that you aren't also designing a ground-up manufacturing process. From an assembly standpoint, K-1 is just another dSLR. Nothing really new there.

I get your concern, and what you hope they are doing, but it isn't an economically viable use of capital.

Last edited by monochrome; 05-11-2016 at 04:22 PM.
05-11-2016, 04:19 PM   #105
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Whatever. OK. I'll try this again.

The product economics do not work without a ground-up change to the entire manufacturing process. They're either going to make a full-on commitment to Mirrorless or not all all. There's no toe-in-the-water, prepared-just-in-case tactical solution beyond Q - and we don't know whether that tech and manufacturing process is scaleable and competitive with the market leader.
You need to add "camera manufacturing engineer" to your profile.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
advantage, af, camera, cars, dslr, dslrs, electricity, energy, fuji, k3ii, lenses, milc, mirror, mirrorless, pentax, petroleum, photography, process, pros, shutter, sony, technology, usage, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missing the lens boat..! MikeV Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 12-29-2015 11:22 AM
Wondering if anyone knows about Elmo gs-1200 cto795 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 09-22-2015 10:57 AM
Landscape Why the Boat Is Called ... chmance Post Your Photos! 8 07-19-2015 01:57 AM
Nature If you were wondering about Pine Martins normhead Post Your Photos! 16 03-15-2015 06:01 PM
Wondering if my Lens is Defective TooLoose Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 01-25-2012 06:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top